DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed
ITA 118/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.118/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-4(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 4Th Floor, Central Buidling Road, Mumbai-400020. No.3, Master Boman Lane, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd4304P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai Dated 04.10.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee. The Sole Issue Is Regarding The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao To The Tune Of Rs.5,58,52,480/- Which Assessee Claimed To Be Incentive In Nature Of Capital [Mega Project Incentive In The Form Of Sales Tax Incentive Etc.)] Whereas According To The Ao It Was Revenue In Nature. Therefore, Deduction Claimed By Assessee Was Not Allowed By The Ao. & Thereafter He Also Made Adjustment Of Book Profit Made By The Ao U/S 115Jb Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Disallowed The Same & Thus Assessed The Book Profit At 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2,06,95,298/-. Against The Action Of The Ao, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Was Pleased To Delete The Same. Aggrieved, By The Aforesaid Action Of The Ld. Cit(A), The Revenue Is Before Us.
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 115Section 115J
…halkar Brothers, order dated 8th June, 2011 has opined that the object of the subsidy was to promote construction of multiplex theatre complexes. Such receipt of subsidy was held on “capital account”. In this decision, the decision of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals 306 ITR 392 (SC) and the decision of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. 228 ITR 253 (SC) has been discussed. It was opined that the test is that the character of the receipt in the 7 A.Y. 2014-15 Degee Cotsyn Pvt. Ltd. hands of the assessee has to be determined with respect to the purpose for which the subsidy was granted. Likewise, in the case of CIT v/s. Ki…